Monthly Archives: October 2013

If a person reads Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, does that make him a fascist?

If a person reads Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, does that make him a Marxist?

Of course not! Many individuals may just want a better understanding of these beliefs regardless of their personal views.

How can one offer criticism about a subject when this person doesn’t understand what he is criticizing?

Every day, we are bombarded by people on Facebook, all trying to get our attention and asking us to “like” their page. These pages can be about movie stars, authors, models, television shows, sports teams, universities, and yes, even political groups.

Since there are political based pages, they can also vary by party, movement, individual candidates or even individual causes. The Tenth Amendment Center even has its own Facebook page, which you can access HERE.

While there are many implications of a potential shutdown of the federal government, one thing that won’t stop is the use of federal asset seizure and forfeiture by law enforcement. That’s because Congress doesn’t fund that activity through appropriations; that money comes out of the Asset Forfeiture Fund, controlled by the Department of Justice. Indeed, these kind of budget battles increase the use of forfeiture by law enforcement agencies looking to sustain budgets when Congress won’t pay the bills. In other words, the rights of Americans to private property may soon come under greater and sustained assault. The need for reform has never been greater.

Asset forfeiture hasn’t always been a major revenue stream for law enforcement. Indeed, that policy proposal came before Congress in 1983, when the Comprehensive Crime Control Act was under consideration. During a May 1983 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Assistant Treasury Secretary John Walker, Jr. proposed giving forfeiture funds to the Departments of Justice and Treasury during this exchange with the late Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

Mr. Walker. The bill would also improve the method of payment for expenses incurred by the Government in conducting forfeiture actions by establishing forfeiture funds in the Departments of Justice and Treasury.

The establishment of these funds would allow the Government to conduct forfeiture actions with much greater dispatch while promoting overall cost savings. Better storage and maintenance of seized property would result, because Justice and Treasury would be able to balance forfeiture expenses with forfeiture proceeds.

Senator Specter [presiding]. How much do you think it likely that the Government would take in on forfeiture proceeds, Mr. Walker?

First, let’s just call it what it is. Political theater with bad actors!

What we have does not constitute a shutdown. If you go to the airport, TSA agents will still grope you. The IRS will collect taxes from American paychecks during the duration of the shutdown. The NSA will continue spying on Americans. Yemeni’s remain under the threat of droning. Heck, Obamacare even went live on the first day of the shutdown. Well, sort of.

This shutdown sucks.

Instead of a real suspension of government activities, a huge number of which violate the Constitution, we have barricades at national parks and shuttered websites like www.usda.gov.

Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available.

As if it costs money or takes manpower for a website to continue floating in cyberspace.

Apparently the furlough took out Michelle Obama’s social media person. Her last tweet declares updates will be limited during the shutdown.

We can’t always tell where or when the next domino will fall, but trends matter.

When it comes hemp cultivation, the federal government isn’t having an effect on the states; rather it’s the states having an effect on each other, and in turn influencing the federal government!

Last year’s legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington is the gift that keeps on giving.

Last August, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice essentially backed down in the face of marijuana legalization by popular vote in both states, saying it would not challenge the new state laws. It’s nearly impossible to enforce these types of prohibitions without local and state support, so in an effort to prevent further embarrassment, the feds issued a stand down order for prosecutors in Colorado and Washington. Now it’s not just Coloradans and Washingtonians taking advantage of this turn in events since the feds abandoned ship. Advocates of industrial hemp see the DOJ announcement as an open door for state production of the crop.

Share this:

As I write this, it appears that the federal government is about to shut down because the House and Senate cannot agree on whether to add language defunding or delaying Obamacare to the “Continuing Resolution”. Despite all the hand-wringing heard in DC, a short-term government shut down (which doesn’t actually shut down the government) will not cause the country to collapse.

And the American people would benefit if Obamacare was defeated or even delayed.

Obamacare saddles the American health care system with new spending and mandates which will raise the price and lower the quality of health care. Denying funds to this program may give Congress time to replace this bill with free-market reforms that put patients and physicians back in charge of health care. Defunding the bill before it becomes implemented can spare the American people from falling under the worst effects of this law.

As heartened as we should be by the fight against Obamacare, we should be equally disheartened by the fact that so few in DC are talking about making real cuts in federal spending. Even fewer are talking about reductions in the most logical place to reduce spending: the military-industrial complex. The US military budget constitutes almost 50 percent of the total worldwide military spending. Yet to listen to some in Congress, one would think that America was one canceled multi-million dollar helicopter contract away from being left totally defenseless.

Share this:

“ANY act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the State of Kansas.” -Second Amendment Protection Act [emphasis added] So echoed the city of Easton, KS on September 3rd with the…

Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). What began as a marginal issue with little legislative support has unified Californians of all persuasions and brought attention to the proper role the people and their states play in a constitutional republic.

AB351 now makes it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government. It reads, in part:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]

This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else. Donnelly’s legislation broadened the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it. Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

This can make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.

Share this:

Law enforcement in Illinois will now have to work under strict regulations when it comes to drones.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed a bill restricting drone spying to the point of near extinction into law late last month.

SB1587 prohibits law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones to gather evidence or other information without a warrant in most cases.

The House overwhelmingly passed the Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act 105-12 on May 30. The Senate gave its approval 52-1 in April and quickly concurred with two House Amendments the day after House passage. Gov. Quinn inked his name on the legislation on Aug. 27.

The act does leave the door open for some drone use. The prime exception allows for the use of drones “to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.” In addition, the bill would permit law enforcement agencies to use drones when attempting to locate a missing person, as long as that flight was “not also undertaking a criminal investigation.” It would also allow for review of a crime scene and traffic crash scene photography. Any information gathered by a drone would have to be destroyed within 30 days, unless the information proved to contain evidence of criminal activity, or was relevant to a trial or investigation.

While the exceptions raise legitimate concerns, as things existed prior to the law, Illinois had no protections against drones.

Share this:

The state of Utah is supplying water to the new Data Center in Bluffdale, UT at a rate of 1.7 MILLION gallons of water every single day. Without that water, the computers there can’t be cooled, and the NSA can no longer carry out its “critical missions.” We know that the NSA has had a…